Accounting Review

Tenant Account of Michael A. Stuart

Premises: Apartment 1554, 1800 Main Street, Dallas, Texas
Period Reviewed: December 1, 2024 – July 31, 2025

Case Reference: Michael A. Stuart v. Brookfield Properties *Cause No.: DC-25-10952, 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Purpose of Review

This forensic accounting review examines the validity of the new debt and ledger produced by Brookfield Properties on July 24, 2025, which claimed a balance due of $2,475.45 on the account of tenant Michael Stuart. The objective is to determine whether this balance is legitimate and properly substantiated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Summary of Findings

Based on the documentary evidence reviewed, including correspondence between the parties, court filings, and the ledger produced by Brookfield, it is the opinion of the undersigned forensic accountant that:

The ledger is materially inaccurate and not compliant with generally accepted accounting or property-management standards.

The claimed debt of $2,475.45 is unsupported, the ledger appears retroactively reconstructed, and multiple entries contradict both prior account history and the testimony of on-site management.

Background
  • Mr. Stuart was a tenant in good standing under a lease term of June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025.
  • A new lease was executed in June 2025 for the following year after a meeting between Mr. Stuart and Assistant Property Manager Vasti De La Garza.
  • There were no outstanding balances or notices of delinquency at that time.
  • Mr. Stuart has a documented history of annual unexplained “renewal-period” overcharges each June, which were later reversed without explanation.

In 2025, when Mr. Stuart again questioned an unexpected charge, Brookfield escalated the issue instead of resolving it — producing a new, backdated ledger on July 24, 2025, showing a sudden debt of $2,475.45.

Key Accounting Irregularities

1. Absence of Continuity in Ledger Balances

  • The ledger produced by Brookfield fails to show a logical continuity of account balances from December 2024 through May 2025.
  • There are no reversing entries to reflect the prior $1,312 credit balance that Brookfield itself admits existed.

2. Ignored Credit Balance Application

Evidence confirms:

  • A $1,312 credit was carried into 2025.
  • This credit was applied to Mr. Stuart’s rent payments from January through April 2025, consistent with the $328 monthly rent obligation.
  • Autopay through BILT Technologies did not process new charges until May 2025, when two $239 withdrawals were made — consistent with the exhaustion of the credit.
  • The ledger Brookfield later created omits the credit, its use, or any reversing entries.
    Instead, it depicts balances as though the credit never existed — a violation of both accounting integrity and transparency standards.

3. Fabricated or Reconstructed Entries

  • The July 24, 2025 ledger contains entries that appear to be re-created from December 2024 forward, retroactively inserting or inflating monthly rent charges and backdating late fees to fabricate a running debt.
  • There is no audit trail, no payment confirmation, and no reconciling record consistent with normal rent-roll reporting.

4. Absence of Source Documentation

  • Brookfield has not produced:
  • Bank deposit confirmations,
  • Tenant payment receipts, or
  • Corresponding accounting records showing when or how the alleged arrears accrued.
    Without these, the ledger cannot be treated as a reliable or auditable record.

5. Federal Contract Conflict

  • Under the governing HUD Section 8 HAP Contract, Brookfield is prohibited from billing or collecting any rent beyond the tenant’s designated portion.
  • The disputed ledger contains amounts exceeding that limit, suggesting violations of both federal housing contract law and Texas Property Code §92.104 regarding misapplied rent and prohibited fees.
Good-Faith Conduct of the Tenant
  • Mr. Stuart maintained autopay enrollment through Brookfield’s required BILT Technologies platform.
  • He deposited $1,000 into the court registry as a show of good faith (see Motion to Deposit Disputed Amount, filed July 14, 2025).
  • Dallas County Housing Authority confirmed the account appeared paid through and requested clarification from Brookfield regarding how the $2,475 debt was created — to which no coherent explanation was provided.
Conclusion

Based on the review of available evidence:

  • The alleged debt is not legitimate.
    The ledger was reconstructed in a manner inconsistent with both Mr. Stuart’s actual payments and Brookfield’s prior acknowledgments of a credit balance.
  • The ledger fails GAAP compliance.
    There is no supporting journal entry detail, reconciliation, or substantiation of balances — rendering it unreliable for financial or legal purposes.
  • Errors originated with Brookfield and BILT’s automated systems.
    These include:

    • Misapplication of a $1,312 credit in December 2024, and
    • Failure of the BILT autopay system to register charges and payments accurately.
  • Brookfield’s post-hoc reconstruction of the ledger constitutes at best negligence, and at worst, a deliberate falsification.
  • Attempting to present this document to Dallas County Housing Authority and the 101st Court as accurate constitutes potential fraudulent misrepresentation and retaliation following Mr. Stuart’s legitimate billing inquiry.
Professional Opinion
  • The July 24, 2025, Brookfield ledger is invalid and non-reconcilable under accounting standards.
  • The purported balance of $2,475.45 was manufactured through retroactive reconstruction and should be disregarded as evidence of debt.
  • The credible account history shows Mr. Stuart’s rent obligations were fully satisfied through May 31, 2025, and that any balance claimed thereafter arose solely from Brookfield’s internal accounting errors and mismanagement of its automated systems.
Recommendations
  1. Brookfield should issue a corrected ledger reflecting:
    • Application of the $1,312 credit;
    • Accurate charges through May 2025;
    • Removal of all backdated and unsupported fees.
  2. The July 24, 2025, ledger should be formally withdrawn from the record.
  3. The Court should consider whether Brookfield’s conduct constitutes retaliatory or fraudulent accounting activity under Tex. Prop. Code §92.331 and related federal housing standards.

Prepared for submission to:
The Honorable Judge Staci Williams
101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Reference

More Information